I just bought a Canon EF-S 10-22 for my EOS 400D and now I've heard some negative things about the durability of the USM (it would fail after some time and the AF doesn't work anymore). But here on DZ.com I read only positive things about this lens, but most post are several years old.

So I would like to hear some long term experiences. Is anyone using this lens for several years for skydiving and have you had any problems? I could still send it back to Amazon if it was a bad choice and buy a Sigma instead.

It's a good, reliable lens. The USM hasn't proven an issue for me on any Canon lens. For what it's worth, I had Error 99 problems with a Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6.

Will you be filming a lot of tandems or otherwise close up shots?

I've since upgraded to a Canon 17-40mm f4 L lens (for shots in the air and on the plane). I found the ability to narrow the field of view to be really useful (particularly when taking shots on the plane).

I'll do all kinds of photos (tandem, freefly, RW). I've used for years the standard kit lens at 18mm and was quite happy with it. But now I've bought a Drift HD cam which has an extreme wide angle and so I wanted also a bit wider still camera lens.

Mine has been working fine for years. Went to the shop once after getting yanked off my feet and slammed into the ground on a high wind day and it broke into 3 pieces! Canon fixed it for $100 and it has continued working fine...

I made around 400-500 jumps on my lens. It was still good as new until it got stolen.

Im most likely buying another one for next summer. It is generally recognized as the best choice for this focal range.

Edited to add: IMO using a lens in skydiving doesnt necessarily cause any additional wear and tear to the lens. However, I have dropped my camera helmet once during a cutaway, and even then my Samyang 8mm + 400D stayed 100% intact.

I’m planning to buy an EOS 650D (Rebel T4i in North America). I’ll attach it to my TonFly CC1 with a ZKulls attachment. My usage will be general jumping with mates (wingsuit/freefly/etc), not doing any commercial tandem stuff. I’ve never jumped a DSLR, so a neophyte in this respect.

Also any thoughts on bite/blow/tongue switch would be useful. Preferences seem quite random among DSLR flyers.

I have a 17-40L that I use as my main lens for photoshoots with studio lighting. It is an excellent lens.

It compared to the 10-22

17MM is significantly more zoomed in (esp on a crop camera) than 10mm. It's wide..but 10mm is significantly wider.

The 17-40 is built like a tank, and the 10-22 (IMO) feels cheaply built. Plastic vs metal. As you might expect, the 17-40 is heavy in comparison (about 100grams more, and total of over a lb). The 17-40 is slow (4.0). The 10-22 is only slightly faster at 3.5.

I think the biggest difference will be in how wide you need the lens to be. If you need near fisheye with really wide field of view at close distances... the 10-22 would be much better. If you don't need it to be that wide and want durability and L series glass/quality and don't care about the extra weight, the 17-40 would be excellent also.

Like any tool, it depends on the job you're trying to use it for. The 17-40L is definitely higher quality glass (and a lot more useful as a "walking around" lens), but if you're trying to shoot, e.g., an RW formation from very close, it's useful to have the 10mm focal length in your arsenal.

Having said that, I have no problem shooting tandems (I do tandems rarely) from pretty close up with the 17-40L dialed to 17. Obviously, if I want to come in really close to the tandem, I'd use the 10-20, but I generally don't get that into the face of the tandem pair. I like that I can also dial the 17-40L back to 40 for shots on the plane (and on the ground), because sometimes the photo opportunities on the ride up are great...

For wingsuiting (most of what I do), I'll often leave mine at 20mm to 24mm...

The widest aperture on the 10-20 is f/3.5; the widest on the 17-40L is f/4, so it isn't a huge difference, but you're not going to get serious bokeh (if that's your thing) on either lens.

I have a 17-40L that I use as my main lens for photoshoots with studio lighting. It is an excellent lens.

It compared to the 10-22

17MM is significantly more zoomed in (esp on a crop camera) than 10mm. It's wide..but 10mm is significantly wider.

The 17-40 is built like a tank, and the 10-22 (IMO) feels cheaply built. Plastic vs metal. As you might expect, the 17-40 is heavy in comparison (about 100grams more, and total of over a lb). The 17-40 is slow (4.0). The 10-22 is only slightly faster at 3.5.

I think the biggest difference will be in how wide you need the lens to be. If you need near fisheye with really wide field of view at close distances... the 10-22 would be much better. If you don't need it to be that wide and want durability and L series glass/quality and don't care about the extra weight, the 17-40 would be excellent also.

Here's a little something I learned from the B&H channel on youtube, the EF-S lenses like the 10-22, basically are L glass quality without the name. They said that since the EF-S glass elements are smaller, they used the higher quality glas because it would cost the same as using a bigger lower quality glass.

Here's a little something I learned from the B&H channel on youtube, the EF-S lenses like the 10-22, basically are L glass quality without the name. They said that since the EF-S glass elements are smaller, they used the higher quality glas because it would cost the same as using a bigger lower quality glass.

I believe it. I'm very happy with the picture quality from my "cheap" 10-22. I only have one complaint, and that's that this lens only has 6 aperture blades, which produces ugly sunstars. You won't find many high priced lenses with an even number of blades like this, I don't think. If they would re-make the 10-22 with 7 aperture blades, I'd pay more for it. Unfortunately there's no other lens with exactly the same range as this one... given the weight, zoom range, and picture quality, I still think it's my favorite skydiving lens... the price is just a bonus.

Here's a little something I learned from the B&H channel on youtube, the EF-S lenses like the 10-22, basically are L glass quality without the name. They said that since the EF-S glass elements are smaller, they used the higher quality glas because it would cost the same as using a bigger lower quality glass.

Some truth here, but also some things people need to make sure they understand if reading that literally.

In the case of the 10-22mm, I would agree that it has "L" quality glass and image quality (I would argue against the build quality being comparable though).

This is not the case for all EF-S lenses though. EF and EF-S are mounting types and don't really note quality at all.

The EF mount was designed for film cameras in the late 80's, and has been carried over to the "full frame" cameras. The EF-S came out in the early 2000's and was designed for the APS-C (smaller) sensor cameras. You can put EF lenses on the smaller sensor cameras (and get your 1..6x crop), but not the other way around. If you plan on ever getting a full frame canon, this would be a good idea to keep that in mind if buying a 10-22.

So EF/EF-S are just mounting types that note what type of sensor they were designed for (full frame or "cropped" APS-C). So the kit lens is a EF-S, as is the nifty 50 etc. The good news is that in general, the current lenses from the major manufactures like canon are pretty good. Not many real lemons out there anymore; the "nifty fifty" tests at near L quality resolution once you stop it down to around 4.0 and costs about 100 bucks. The "kit" lens that comes with the cameras now has had some reviews that show image quality of glass that costs 5 times as much.

Not trying to get too off topic here, but there is a lot to what goes into a "good" lens (picture quality, speed, focus speed/accuracy, weight, build quality etc.), and the mount type doesn't really dictate quality. In general you get what you pay for, so yes, the $650 10-22 is all around a fantastic lens, and has many "L" qualities. In some ways it's better...in other ways it lags behind. Just depends on what you need the lens to do for you.

The other has the focal range of 10-22 and the other has 17-40. Totally different FOV.You should only compare lenses that has the same focal length.

The 17-40 is the cheaper version of the 16-35 which actually has identical FOV in a Full frame camera, as the 10-22 has in a APS-C camera. In other words, the 10-22 is essentially the same wide angle ment for the cropped sensor.

If you want something for the 17-> focal range for a cropped sensor, I most definetly recommend you get the 17-55 2.8, which is a much better choice for your APS-C camera. However, Im almost positive, that you would find the 10-22 focal range better suited for skydiving needs.